German Support for Darfur

At present the German Army, the Bundeswehr, is taking part in nine missions abroad. But is often criticized for lacking a consistent strategy, especially in Afghanistan, where troops serve under three different mandates.

The deployments are also stretching the Bundeswehr, which is one of the reason's Chancellor Merkel's coalition gave for waving aside French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for European troops to protect refugees from Darfur, according to the government.

But many German parliamentarians consider the argument of depleted capacities an insufficient one. They say this mission is necessary, precisely because it is a humanitarian one. At the same time, they want a debate about which missions the Bundeswehr should take part in, and which should have priority.

Deutsche Welle: Mr. Gerhardt, considering the drop in public acceptance of foreign peacekeeping missions, is there -- at the least -- a problem of communication between politicians and the people? Isn't it time for a general debate on the purpose of the individual missions?

Wolfgang Gerhard: Yes. As a government, or as a member of parliament or the opposition, each day you have to justify to society why you mobilize soldiers. You have to have clear criteria. And you have to go into this debate convincingly, with political leadership. The security of our country is threatened by places in the world where there are problems, and it can only be ensured if we, along with other democratic nations, and with United Nations mandates, can to some degree calm the world's hot spots.

But the priorities are also unclear. Some say the missions must be in Germany's interest. Is that definition justified?

In the interest of human dignity and in the interest of freedom and security in the world, I would add that is in Germany's interest. That may sound generalized, but it can be more precise. If we are unable to offer people in Afghanistan an alternative to poppy-growing, where they supply practically the entire world with drugs, then deploying all those soldiers there is useless. So a political solution must always accompany a military mission.

So in addition to the military deployment, we have to think much more intensely about social structures there, with participation by the European Union. In Darfur, where women are being raped, and human suffering is everywhere, it's not a place where we can stay away -- if the Bundeswehr is capable of involvement -- on moral or ethical grounds. Anyone who goes into Congo to monitor elections should have strong arguments for not going into Darfur.

So you're in favor of an engagement, of a Bundeswehr mission to Darfur?

The first question is does the Bundeswehr have the capacity to take part in what maybe action in Darfur. And the second reason is a moral question for me -- the responsibility to protect is one of the important points of foreign policy in our times. We see worldwide that there are governments who do not like to protect their own people, and though it is a responsibility for the community of democratic nations, with a legitimate mandate from the United Nations to protect people, that's a main reason for me to advocate participation of the Bundeswehr if the Bundeswehr is capable of doing so.

Can the Bundeswehr do that?

If it can, then we should not stand on the sidelines. My moral justification for that doesn't exist in a vacuum of course -- we have to know if the Bundeswehr can do it, if it has the capacities to get involved. And who else would take part? All of that has not yet been answered. But if there is a special humane reason to protect people, then Darfur is an important place for it.

Why do you think then that the German government is being so reticent about committing troops to Darfur?

I believe the government has a hard time with this rejection. For moral and ethical reasons, it must realize this responsibility to protect, when human rights are discussed, for instance in the United Nations. We have to clear all the deployment mandates and all the soldiers we have worldwide. We have to ask ourselves what is the reason, what is the aim, where is the escape, is the task fulfilled?

We had a mission in Congo, it was not a mission I would like to have. It was for one day, or two days, we left Congo and nothing is better there. We have been in Afghanistan for years, we haven't given the people an alternative for social security; we have only deployed soldiers. We have to fulfill mandates but not only with soldiers. We have been looking on for years at the rape in Darfur, at the brutality in Darfur and we know that the government of Sudan is not able to protect the people there.

Given the low support in Germany for foreign peacekeeping missions, how will you sell this mission to Darfur?

Every conflict has a variety of reasons -- the agricultural structure in the region, the ethnic split in this region. But at the end of the day you have to convince people in which world we would like to live, and what is security for the Federal Republic of Germany, and what are the necessary steps to protect Europe. If we are not able to calm conflicts in worldwide hotspots, we cannot contribute to security policy in Europe.

DW-TV's Christopher Springate interviewed Wolfgang Gerhardt (sp)